Understanding how Building Environmental Assessments Tools (BEATs) measure and define “environmental” building is of great interest to many stakeholders, but it is difficult to understand how BEATs relate to each other, as well as to make detailed and systematic tool comparisons. A framework for comparing BEATs is presented in the following which facilitates an understanding and comparison of similarities and differences in terms of structure, content, aggregation, and scope. The framework was tested by comparing three distinctly different assessment tools; LEED-NC v3, Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH), and EcoEffect. Illustrations of the hierarchical structure of the tools gave a clear overview of their structural differences. When using the framework, the analysis showed that all three tools treat issues related to the main assessment categories: Energy and Pollution, Indoor Environment, and Materials and Waste. However, the environmental issues addressed, and the parameters defining the object of study, differ and, subsequently, so do rating, results, categories, issues, input data, aggregation methodology, and weighting. This means that BEATs measure “environmental” building differently and push “environmental” design in different directions. Therefore, tool comparisons are important, and the framework can be used to make these comparisons in a more detailed and systematic way.
References
[1]
Happio, A.; Viitaniemi, P. A critical review of building environmental assessment tools. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2008, 28, 469–482, doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2008.01.002.
[2]
Assefa, G.; Glaumann, M.; Malmqvist, T.; Kindembe, B.; Hult, M.; Myhr, U.; Eriksson, O. Environmental assessment of building properties—Where natural and social science meet. The case of Ecoeffect. Build. Environ. 2007, 42, 1458–1464, doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.12.011.
[3]
CEN (European Committee for Standardization). European Standard EN 15643-1 Sustainability of Construction Works—Sustainability Assessment of buildings—Part 1: General Framework; CEN: Brussels, Belgium, 2010.
Reijnders, L.; van Roekel, A. A comprehensiveness and adequacy of tools for the environmental improvements of buildings. J. Clean. Prod. 1999, 77, 221–225, doi:10.1016/S0959-6526(99)00080-3.
[6]
Todd, J.A.; Crawley, D.; Geissler, S.; Lindsey, G. Comparative assessment of environmental performance tools and the role of the Green Building Challenge. Build. Res. Inf. 2001, 29, 324–335, doi:10.1080/09613210110064268.
[7]
Forsberg, A.; von Malmborg, F. Tools for environmental assessment of the built environment. Build. Environ. 2004, 39, 223–228.
[8]
Finnveden, G.; Moberg, ？. Environmental systems analysis tools—An overview. J. Clean. Prod. 2005, 13, 1165–1173, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2004.06.004.
Fowler, K.M.; Rauch, E.M. Sustainable Building Rating Systems Summary; Pacific Northwest National Laboratory: Richland, WA, USA, 2006.
[11]
Sangster, W. Benchmark Study on Green Buildings: Current Policies and Practices in Leading Green Building Nations; Canada Energy and Environmental Industries Branch: Canada, 2006. Available online: http://www.raic.org/architecture_architects/green_architecture/gb-benchmarkstudy.pdf (accessed on 15 January 2013).
[12]
Sundkvist, ？.; Eriksson, O.; Glaumann, M.; Bergman, S.; Finnveden, G.; Stenbeck, S.; Wintzell, H. Milj？klassning av Byggnader—Inventering av Metoder och Intressenters Behov (in Swedish); KTH Institutionen f？r samh？llsplanering och milj？: Stockholm, Sweden, 2006.
[13]
Zhenhong, G.; Wennersten, R.; Assefa, G. Analysis of the most widely used building environmental assessment methods. Environ. Sci. 2006, 3, 175–192, doi:10.1080/15693430600903230.
[14]
AIA (American Institute of Architects). Quantifying Sustainability: A Study Of Three Sustainable Building Rating Systems and The AIA Position Statement; AIA: Washington, DC, USA, 2008.
[15]
Ding, G.K.C. Sustainable construction—The role of environmental assessment tools. J. Environ. Manag. 2008, 86, 451–464, doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.12.025.
[16]
Myhr, U. Property-Level Environmental Assessment Tools for Outdoor AreasPh.D. Dissertation, Department of Urban and Rural Development, Swedish University of Agricultural Science, Uppsala, Sweden, 2008.
[17]
Kajikawa, Y.; Inoue, T.; Ngee Goh, T. Analysis of building environmental assessment frameworks and their implications for sustainable indicators. Sustain. Sci. 2011, 6, 233–246, doi:10.1007/s11625-011-0131-7.
[18]
Nguyen, B.K.; Altan, H. Comparative review of five sustainable rating systems. Procedia Eng. 2011, 21, 376–386, doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2011.11.2029.
[19]
Sev, A. A comparative analysis of building environmental assessment tools and suggestions for regional adaptations. Civil Eng. Environ. Syst. 2011, 28, 231–245, doi:10.1080/10286608.2011.588327.
[20]
Alyami, S.H.; Rezgui, Y. Sustainable building assessment tool development approach. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2012, 5, 52–56, doi:10.1016/j.scs.2012.05.004.
[21]
Berardi, U. Sustainability assessment in the construction sector: Rating systems and rated buildings. Sustain. Dev. 2012, 20, 411–420, doi:10.1002/sd.532.
[22]
Wallhagen, M.; Glaumann, M. Design consequences of differences in building assessment tools: A case study. Build. Res. Inf. 2011, 39, 16–33, doi:10.1080/09613218.2010.513210.
[23]
Malmqvist, T.; Glaumann, M. Selecting problem-related environmental indicators for housing management. Build. Res. Inf. 2006, 34, 321–333, doi:10.1080/09613210600733658.
[24]
Glaumann, M.; Malmqvist, T.; Wallhagen, M. Selecting environmental assessment tool for buildings. In Proceedings of the 6th World Sustainable Building Conference, Helsinki, Finland, 18–21 October 2011.
[25]
USGBC (U.S. Green Building Council). LEED-NC, Green Building Rating System for New Construction and Major Renovations; USGBC: Washington, DC, USA, 2009. Version 3.
[26]
USGBC. LEED-NC, Green Building Rating System for New Construction and Major Renovations; USGBC: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2005. Version 2.2.
[27]
DCLG (Department for Communities and Local Government). The Code for Sustainable Homes Technical Guide May 2009; Communities and Local Government Publications: Wetherby, UK, 2009.
[28]
Humbert, S.; Abeck, H.; Bali, N.; Horvath, A. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED): A critical evaluation by LCA and recommendations for improvement. Int. J. Life Cycle Manag. 2007, 12, 46–57.
[29]
Wallhagen, M.; Glaumann, M.; Westerberg, U. What is a “green” building according to different assessment tools? In Proceedings of the World Sustainable Building Conference, Melbourne, Australia, 21–25 September 2008.
[30]
Azhar, S.; Carlton, A.W.; Olsen, D.; Ahmad, I. Building information modeling for sustainable design and LEED rating analysis. Autom. Constr. 2011, 20, 217–224, doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2010.09.019.
[31]
DCLG (Department for Communities and Local Government). The Code for Sustainable Homes Setting the Standard in Sustainability for New Homes; Communities and Local Government Publications: West Yorkshire, UK, 2008.
[32]
Code for Sustainable Homes to be overhauled. Available online: http://www.buildup.eu/es/news/6907 (accessed on 18 December 2012).
[33]
BREEAM (BRE Environmental Assessment Method). The Code for Sustainable Homes. Available online: http://www.breeam.org/page.jsp?id=86 (accessed on 18 March 2012).
[34]
Ecohomes 2006—The Environmental Rating for Homes. Available online: http://www.breeam.org/filelibrary/Technical%20Manuals/EcoHomes_2006_Guidance_v1.2_-_April_2006.pdf (accessed on 18 December 2012).
[35]
Glaumann, M.; Malmqvist, T. Milj？v？rdering av Bebyggelse, EcoEffect-Metoden—Bakgrund och Sammanfattande Beskrivning (in Swedish); Report for KTH: Bebyggelseanalys, Sweden, 2004.
[36]
Sutrisna, M.; Barrett, P. Applying rich picture diagrams to model case studies of construction projects. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2007, 14, 164–179, doi:10.1108/09699980710731281.
[37]
Malmqvist, T. Environmental rating methods: Selecting indoor environmental quality (IEQ) aspects and indicators. Build. Res. Inf. 2008, 36, 466–485, doi:10.1080/09613210802075841.
[38]
Wang, N.; Chang, Y-C.; Nunn, C. Lifecycle assessment for sustainable design options of a commercial building in Shanghai. Build. Environ. 2010, 45, 1415–1421, doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2009.12.004.
[39]
CEN (European Committee for Standardization). CEN/TC 350. Available online: http://www.cen.eu/CEN/Sectors/TechnicalCommitteesWorkshops/CENTechnicalCommittees/Pages/WP.aspx?param=481830&title=CEN%2FTC+350 (accessed on 9 January 2013).
[40]
CEN. European Standard EN 15643-2, Sustainability of Construction Works—Sustainability Assessment of Buildings—Part 2: Framework for the Assessment of Environmental Performance; CEN: Brussels, Belgium, 2011.
[41]
Eriksson, O.; Glaumann, M.; Assefa, G. Life cycle impact assessment—Damage based weighting method for environmental impact assessment. In proceedings of the World Sustainable Building Conference, Tokyo, Japan, 29 September 2005.
[42]
In EcoEffect, cost is assessed as life cycle cost for two reference scenarios: The first one because environment-related costs such as energy and waste are rising considerably compared with other costs; and the other because cost relations remain stable throughout the lifetime of the building.
[43]
Green Guide to Specification. Available online: http://www.bre.co.uk/greenguide/podpage.jsp?id=2126 (accessed on 18 March 2012).
[44]
USGBC. LEED 2009 Weightings Background; USGBC: Washington, DC, USA, 2008.
[45]
Background to the Green Guide to Specification. Available online: http://www.bre.co.uk/greenguide/page.jsp?id=2069 (accessed on 18 March 2012).
[46]
Wilson, A.; Boehland, J. Small is beautiful—U.S. house size, resource use, and the environment. J. Ind. Ecol. 2005, 9, 277–287, doi:10.1162/1088198054084680.
[47]
Conte, E.; Monno, V. Beyond the buildingcentric approach: A vision for an integrated evaluation of sustainable buildings. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2012, 34, 31–40, doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2011.12.003.
[48]
Finnveden, G. On the limitations of life cycle assessment and environmental systems analysis tool in general. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2000, 5, 229–238, doi:10.1007/BF02979365.
[49]
Stenberg, A-C.; R？is？nen, C. The interpretative, flexibility of “green” in the building sector: diachronic and synchronic perspectives. Int. Stud. Manag. Org. 2006, 36, 32–54.
[50]
Myhr, U.; Johansson, R. EcoEffect for outdoor environments; The process of tool development. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2008, 28, 439–454, doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2007.09.001.
[51]
Hastings, R.; Wall, M. Sustainable Solar Housing: Volume 1—Strategies and Solutions; Earthscan: London, UK, 2007.
[52]
Meadows, D. Indicators and Information Systems for Sustainable Development—A Report to the Balaton Group; The Sustainability Institute: Hartland, WI, USA, 1998.
[53]
Moberg, ？. Assessment of Media and Communication from a Sustainability PerspectivePh.D. Dissertation, Department of Urban Planning and Environment, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, WI, USA, 2010.
[54]
Embodied energy—The energy that has been used to produce and service a material or product. The embodied energy calculation includes initial and recurrent embodied energy. Initial embodied energy is used to produce the building material or component. The recurrent energy is embodied in goods and services used in routine maintenance, repair and refurbishment during the operational period.
[55]
Oppenheim, D.; Treloar, G. Embodied energy and office buildings—A case study. In Proceedings of the 33rd Australia & New Zealand Solar Energy Society Conference, Tasmania, Australia, 29 November 1995.
[56]
Pullen, S.; Perkins, A. Energy use in the urban environment and its greenhouse gas implication. In Proceedings of the Transaction of the International Symposium on Energy, Environment and Economics, Victoria, Australia, 20–24 November 1995.
[57]
Cole, R.J.; Kernan, P.C. Life-cycle energy use in office buildings. Build. Environ. 1996, 31, 307–317, doi:10.1016/0360-1323(96)00017-0.
[58]
Pierquet, P.; Bowyer, J.L.; Huelman, P. Thermal performance and embodied energy of cold climate wall systems. For. Prod. J. 1998, 48, 53–60.
[59]
Treloar, G.J.; Love, P.E.D.; Faniran, O.O. Improving the reliability of embodied energy methods for project lifecycle decision making. Logist. Inf. Manag. 2001, 14, 303–317, doi:10.1108/EUM0000000006243.
[60]
Pullen, S. Energy used in the construction and operation of houses. Archit. Sci. Rev. 2000, 43, 87–94, doi:10.1080/00038628.2000.9697439.
[61]
Blanchard, S.; Reppe, P. LCA of a Residential Home in Michigan; School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan: Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 1998.
[62]
Adalberth, K.; Almgren, A.; Petersen, E.H. Life Cycle Assessment of four multi-family Buildings. Int. J. Low Energy Sustain. Build. 2001, 2, 1–21.
[63]
Maddox, B.; Nunn, L. Life Cycle Analysis of Clay Brick Housing Based on a Typical Project Home; The Centre for Sustainable Technology, University of Newcastle: Newcastle, UK, 2003.
[64]
Sartori, I.; Hestnes, A.G. Energy use in the life cycle of conventional and low-energy buildings: A review article. Energy Build. 2007, 39, 249–257, doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2006.07.001.
[65]
Blengini, G.A.; Di Carlo, T. The changing role of life cycle phases, subsystems and materials in the LCA of low energy buildings. Energy Build. 2010, 42, 869–880, doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2009.12.009.
[66]
Wallhagen, M.; Glaumann, M.; Malmqvist, T. Basic building life cycle calculations to decrease contribution to climate change—Case study on an office building in Sweden. Build. Environ. 2011, 46, 1863–1871, doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.02.003.
[67]
Lee, B.; Trcka, M.; Hensen, J.L.M. Embodied energy of building materials and green building rating systems—A case study of industrial halls. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2011, 1, 67–71, doi:10.1016/j.scs.2011.02.002.
